Now posts ↓

Sunday, 4 March 2018

Last November there was a stoush about a young guy called Josh Rivers. You may remember.He was the first black man to be appointed Editor of the magazine Gay Times. But he had a past on Twitter and Patrick Strudwick at Buzzfeed had either found it or someone had pointed Strudwick at it. He had found tweets that were horrific, just the worst. Here's one of them.

Now Strudwick read that tweet one way but I read that another, as Rivers seeing whatever TV show or film he's talking about as promoting a stereotype. Maybe I looked at it that way because I went and looked at the sort of stuff that Rivers was tweeting at this time in 2011.

I've underlined his raging sexism.

Having looked at his old Twitter and then at his most recent Twitter what I saw was a working class black gay London lad, with an activist single mother, who was learning the refined ways of Diversityville. The codes, the lingo, the genuflections. That was all there in his recent Twitter. And for whatever reason someone hated him enough to go trawl through his history.

(Rivers has deleted his Twitter account so it's not now possible to go look.)

Rivers was trashed across all media, even Radio Four did him in. Buzzfeed got their man and now it's immortalised forever on Wikipedia.

The pile on was compete. All his friends abandoned him, nobody spoke in his defence and to my shame I was one of those who said little.

This was a rare comment defending Rivers that was made at that time, one I have a lot of sympathy with.

Both Rivers and today's outrage-du-jour Munroe Bergdorf have
said things on Twitter which they later publicly regretted. I have said
things I regretted. I bet you, the reader, have too. Yet we seem to have
all gone along with a culture where some people are selected to be hung out to
dry, to be firmly excluded from the group, for things we know we might
have either also done or which could be painted as horrible by a determined adversary. That's not really new but perhaps what is is the sheer amount of piety and righteousness it gets wrapped up in. If there is a line to be crossed that line is dependent
on who you are and who's in your team.

Which leads me to this ...

The obvious point

The obvious point is that Rivers got completely different treatment to what we're seeing now with Munroe Bergdorf.

The other obvious point is that there's a reason why we're even talking about Bergdorf, why she's a thing and why she's defended when Rivers wasn't, and it is linked to what happened to Rivers .It's the same crowd that generated both of them as stories.

Bergdorf is a thing because Labour's Dawn Butler MP took it upon herself to appoint an 'LGBT Advisory Group'. Hence the photo op with Corbyn.

Bergdorf's appointment to that group sucked all the air out of the room so there was little left for either why Butler had done this - was it all her idea or her staff's or who came up with this? - or who were these other people in this group? And how on earth had she not spoken to Labour LGBT, the party's affiliated, representative, long-standing, democratic (you get the picture) LGBT group?When Labour LGBT sounded off about what Butler had done she quickly apologised and made Labour LGBT the 'secretariat' (no idea either what that means) to this Advisory Group and their complaints stopped.

Labour lovin' entrepreneurs

Butler's group appears to have been the idea of Linda Riley and Anthony Watson. Riley has enough history for a determined, Strudwick-like, journalist to get their teeth into. This is Watson.

'Lead LGBT Advisor to UK Labour'? Really?I don't see either Riley or Watson having their histories investigated. (Mind you, Watson's Twitter TL is a deadend, folks. It strongly reminded me of the characters Fluffy and Uranus from the 90s cartoon Duckman. Not a hair out of place.) What I do see is this same crowd of professional 'diversity champions' all failing to apply the 'standards' they applied to Rivers to their pick for the in-crowd - Bergdorf.

And the sole reason we're even aware
of Bergdorf's existence is that this crowd got the ear of Dawn Butler
and deliberately snubbed LGBT Labour in order to promote themselves.
(They're 'entrepreneurs', remember. Bergdorf's Twitter profile is links
to her management and her press contact.)

Helen Lewis made the point today that Bergdorf is in there, in this Advisory Group, just because of her identity but I think she's there because Butler got captured by this professional 'diversity' crowd and what Bergdorf really adds for these people is a little stardust. Both Riley and Watson are Directors of GLAAD, the Hollywood focused diversity organisation whose brand is all about leveraging stardust for the cause.

The story should be why we're even talking about Bergdorf, but that's not the story.

Monday, 7 August 2017

Tomorrow in Lima, Peru nine Latin American states (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama and Paraguay) plus Canada will meet with the aim of establishing a “contact group” that they hope can be the best way of pressuring Venezuela to
return to democracy.

That Venezuela has left democracy trailing behind in the dust is beyond dispute but for those still with doubts this piece by Francisco Toro helpfully explained the process whereby Venezuela has arrived at this point by putting it into American terms:

Using the FBI to threaten and intimidate them, the president forces three Supreme Court justices to resign. After Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor leave, a lame-duck session of Congress rushes through the appointment of Roger Stone, Kellyanne Conway and Anthony Scaramucci to the court. The liberals kick and scream, but there’s nothing they can do. Scaramucci becomes chief justice.

It has taken the crisis to reach this point for Latin America to finally address the problem of Venezuela - because they see how it will effect them.

It has had a major impact. Columbia is talking about a looming refugee crisis. That's a country [with one of the] biggest refugee populations in the world itself because of decades of civil war. So this crisis has put a real strain on its limited resources already.

The treatment of the refugees, by the way, by the region has been incredible. They have not been turned back - instead they have been made welcome.

Hundreds of Indigenous people live in abject poverty on the border of Brazil. And we're seeing them crossing into the tiny island of Trinidad that Venezuela borders by sea, trying to find food and trying to escape.

That's Commonwealth member Trinidad, which already hosts 40,000 refugees, 5% of its population. The neighbouring tiny island of Curaçao, which because it's part of, or rather one of, The Netherlands is also part of the European Union, already hosts 10,000.

There
is no coordination between the Venezuelan military and the Colombians,
there is absolute distrust, it is as if one spoke in Chinese and the
other responded in Quechua.

"It is a chaos and a permanent
anarchy," Joaquin Villalobos, the Salvadoran ex-guerrilla turned
consultant for conflict resolution, told them. "In the midst of chaos, the power acquired by criminal
platforms is incredible."

The move to create a 'contact group' is because the Organisation of American States, whose General Secretary is the socialist former Foreign Minister of Uruguay, has been blocked from taking collective actions because of countries like Cuba as well as Nicaragua and some Caribbean islands which rely on Venezuelan financing and Venezuelan oil. As well the Vatican has been working behind the scenes to promote the idea of a 'contact group'.

[Listen to the powerful statement by OAS General Secretary Luis Almagro]

The strategists who are trying to put together a regional agreement to
corner Maduro, report Lafuente and Cué, believe that, despite the opposition of some countries
like Bolivia, that a consensus is
being established in which the crisis is deep, with enormous risk for
all Countries, and the region can not stand still.

Says Kurmanaev:

Few countries are prepared to tolerate [Maduro's authoritarian rule] and stay quiet about it, which reduces the number of countries that might be able to mediate.

He explained that it is hoped that the Dominican Republic and Uruguay might be among the few potential Latin American countries left who could open the door for dialogue with Maduro.

Countries like Canada may be able to quietly exert some pressure on its neighbours to the south to push for a regional solution, he said.

I think the bigger, more powerful countries like the U.S. and Canada should focus on trying to provide incentives for the smaller countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to take a united stance — for them to say, 'Enough is enough and you have to change.'

This requires offering some sort of financial incentives, or maybe [tightening] immigration and remittances rules … It's in everyone's interest to have a stable Venezuela on their doorstep.

Comparing the situation to a game of Jenga with so many pieces already removed, Kurmanaev says "it's very difficult to see how it will end, but it could certainly come crashing down at any moment."

********

You might not know about any of this if you're a casual news consumer let alone one of the many who gets their news via social media. In the UK the past eight days has been one long shitfight between right and left over Venezuela.

This piece by Ian Dunt, repenting his past support for 'Chavismo', is very good and one of several lamenting the 'gotcha!' coverage. Writing for the New Statesman James Bloodsworth bemoaned a "point scoring exercise" and pointed out that Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn could do some practical good over getting political prisoners freed. (President Maduro is well aware of who Corbyn is and would undoubtedly take his call.)

On seemingly good terms with the government of Nicolás Maduro, Corbyn’s words may actually carry weight in Venezuela. This is a matter of some importance when the country appears to be marching toward full-blown dictatorship.

This was the point I argued in May when I wrote that Corbyn had a chance to be a Man of Peace, not just play one on TV:

When his visit to the region he professes to love was reported by Telesur at the beginning of this year Corbyn could have spoken out on Venezuela. When he spoke to the Cuban Solidarity crowd last June he could have spoken out.

He could have demanded:

That the Venezuelan government rejoin the peace process

That the Venezuelan government declare a food crisis

That the Venezuelan government allow humanitarian aid agencies and NGOs to freely operate and to bring in aid

He could have repeated the words, practically word-for-word, of the Pope.

Then we had the breaking-of-the-omerta by Owen Jones, the well known writer and man bouncing on Oprah's sofa, on Sky News' Paper Review. Goaded by the IEA's Kate Andrews that 'Corbyn should apologise!' this event was gleefully reported by the right-wing blogger Guido as where Jones finally called the Maduro regime 'authoritarian'.

But here's the thing. Jones was actually referring to a Labour Party statement, one which has had precious little analysis during this melee but which represents a truly terrible policy on Venezuela. One which concerns me as a Party member and should concern others too.

This statement was issued a week ago but not emailed to journalists or announced on Twitter.

We mourn all those who have been killed and injured in the protests leading up to this election, and we urge everyone in Venezuela, on all sides, to end the bloodshed immediately.

In particular, we urge the government of Venezuela to recognise its responsibilities to protect human rights, free speech and the rule of law. The outcome of this election cannot be treated as a mandate for a further escalation of repression, division, and violence.

President Maduro must also respond personally to the legitimate concerns of the international community about the increasingly authoritarian nature of his rule and the growing hardship facing his people.

If he believes those concerns are misplaced, it is up to him to prove them wrong, not through his words, but through his deeds.

After two days of attacks on Corbyn, including a Times Editorial, on Wednesday a social media meme was created.

This vague, who-can-disagree, policy-free waffle showed no connection to anyone or anything. It should be judged on what it did not say and whose influence it obviously did not reflect.

Take for example the strong statement issued by the Socialist International, the grouping which Labour is an observer to and which has four parties who are members in Venezuela.

Given the lack of legitimacy of the path taken by the Venezuelan government, the Socialist International, along with condemning this serious breakdown of democratic order, today reiterates its deep solidarity with every citizen who has been suffering from the consequences of the serious political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis to which the country has been subject for a long time; a crisis that is deepening and worsening the further Venezuela moves away from good governance, and respect and recognition of the institutions of democracy.

That statement, unlike Labour's, did not accept the legitimacy of the Constituent Assembly. It also did not talk about "both sides".

Labour MP Angela Smith, by contrast, has condemned the “wilful destruction of democratic structures” in Venezuela.

They go on to say:

Venezuela, which has always been an ally in the struggles for democracy and freedom in the face of past dictatorships in Latin America, does not deserve this fate.

The government of Venezuela must respect the life, liberty and rights of all of its citizens and must release immediately all political prisoners. The government should listen to those who have an opinion to contribute to democratic coexistence, beginning with those who have been duly elected to do so, the members of the National Assembly, elected in December 2015 for a tenure lasting until 2021. The government must respect and recognise the mandate given by the people to the National Assembly and the powers of this institution in line with the country’s constitutional system.

Labour does not mention political prisoners. It has not called for the release of Leopoldo López and Antonio Ledezma. The meme was put out after their arrest and after it was established with overwhelming evidence that the results of an election it does not condemn were rigged, the turnout inflated by at least double.

The statement gives no solidarity to those from Labour's sister parties in the region trying for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Perhaps most depressingly it does not call on the regime to do something absolutely minimal: declare a 'food crisis'. This technical requirement would immediately trigger international humanitarian aid - food and medicines - for a desperate, starving, dying population.

Instead the statement is a solipsistic, too clever by half concoction produced on the quiet and simply intended to deflect, to have something that can be waved around to say, as Jones did, 'see, we did do something'.

*******

Jones, Williamson and many others have also defaulted to 'whataboutistry' by pointing at the UK's corrupt relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Apart from the pedestrian lack of nous shown in not, instead, pointing at Conservative support for the Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame, as the former Minister Denis McShane has been saying for the past few days, this completely ignores the UK's corrupt relationship with Venezuela.

The truly astonishing levels of corruption by the 'Bolivarian bourgeoisie’ is enabled by the UK's famously lax financial regulation and our possession of tax havens like the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Read anything about the characters pouring billions into Miami real estate and the use of shell companies in the BVI will invariably come up.

And that corruption kills people as surely as a bomb sold to the Saudi armed forces does. “Malnutrition in Venezuela is a problem of corruption, not a lack of money,” Maritza Landaeta, a director of the Bengoa Foundation, a Caracas-based health and nutrition charity, told the Financial Times.

Recognition of our role here is not a failing, though, solely of left figures like Jones. Those on the right who have cited the gobsmacking wealth of Chavez' billionaire daughter also seem to be unaware of our part in that.

*******

Nobody seems to know what will happen next though it is clear that the opposition is exhausted and divided on what to do. It is not even clear if the street protests will return to the level they have been. I was struck by this observation from a Reuters piece about the connections between Venezuela's protesters and those in Ukraine:

While Ukraine's protesters endured freezing conditions day and night, Venezuela's thin out quickly when rain starts, and they go home in the evening and enjoy balmy Caribbean weather.

The Venezuelans point out that criminal gangs make the streets dangerous at night. And with their economy in meltdown, they are often short of medicine, food and other needs, whereas the Ukrainians had a good supply line.

Apparently the 'Revolution of Dignity' or 'Maidan' in Ukraine has been inspiring Venezuealan protesters and the film Winter on Fire has been sought out and has been shown on the street, in cafes, in halls, everywhere.

There is also the possibility that the crisis could resolve itself within Venezuela, without any outside pressure.

Yesterday's supposed military insurrection, which lit up social media for a few hours, may be a nothingburger or may not be. As Guillermo Tell Aveledo points out the civilian-military alliance that runs Venezuela may fray because the military, or parts of it, thinks that that Maduro's gone too far and he has become an obstacle to their personal (read financial) best interests.

While the Constituent Assembly inevitably will alter relations between the government and opposition, it could also bring to light splits within the government camp itself.

The most important question the Assembly will face once installed is who will become its president. The outcome will depend on which faction from the ruling party is deemed to have won most seats. If Maduro’s main rival, Diosdado Cabello – Vice President of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) – were to prevail, this would represent at least a change of style, and could presage a split in the government.

Maduro, a former trade union leader who received ideological training in Cuba, represents the hardline, civilian left of the movement. Cabello, an army captain who took part in Hugo Chávez’ 1992 coup, belongs to its military wing, and tends to be more hawkish in public than Maduro. His comrades from the military academy are now well-placed generals.

Friction between the two camps, each of which controls distinct state institutions and sources of revenue, has occasionally surfaced despite largely successful efforts to date to maintain a unified front against the opposition. Cabello is seen by some as hostile to Cuban influence in Venezuela, but whether one of the two is more likely to negotiate remains a matter for speculation.

The regime’s Achilles heel is its economic and financial crisis, and in particular its crushing foreign debt. Some US$5 billion in debt service payments must be disbursed before the end of this year. A chaotic default would transform the country’s economic landscape and further weaken the government’s international and domestic position.

Much will depend on the posture taken by Venezuela’s key international backers, Russia and China. As a major oil producer, Russia could step in to reduce the impact of future U.S. oil sanctions, while China could increase its financial support for Caracas by extending the debt repayment period, affording the Maduro regime some breathing space. So far, Moscow has reiterated its public stance condemning what it sees as “outside interference”, while Beijing has remained silent.

All sorts of fractures already visible could become wider and civil war is not a hysterical suggestion. Says Gunson, everybody, in particular the Opposition, faces an unpalatable but best option for an end game:

The best outcome would be for the international community to offer members of the regime a safe exit for themselves and for the country as a whole, in exchange for a credible negotiations process that reverses recent governmental decisions. ... Credible assurances should be conveyed to the government’s core leadership that a negotiated exit can include guarantees for their personal safety, and to mid-ranking officials that a transitional justice system can be put in place to prevent witch-hunts.

*******

To cap off what was a terrible week yesterday The Observer published a surreal Editorial which pretty much told regional leaders that they had no right to lecture Venezuela because 'neoliberal'.

What it suggested anyone actually does was a complete mystery because it's final pretentious line - "Stop harrumphing. Start helping." - led to a review of a book about Chavez in the London Review of Books whose proposed 'solution' appeared to me to be 'bring back Chavez from the dead'.

No, rather than taking the opportunity to bash 'neoliberals', 'socialists' or even (despite the oh-so-strong temptations) Owen Jones what we should all be doing first and foremost is hoping that those Foreign Ministers meeting in Lima tomorrow are successful and from that they can talk, cajole, whatever Maduro down off the cliff edge.

Note:

As I was writing this a statement signed by Corbyn was issued. Apart from the 'both sides' rhetoric and the rote calls to end violence. A couple of things leapt out. Firstly that he was calling for a dialogue which regional leaders are attempting (as I explain) to which he appears completely, blithely unaware of and secondly that he references Macron calling for this rather than, say, an actual Latin American. Corbyn has a very good friend in the Mexican left-wing Presidential candidate Lopez Obrador. What I got a strong whiff off with this statement is that he hasn't called up Obrador to ask 'so what can I do to help?' Solidarity my arse.

Even Western leaders who are distinguished by the boldness of their statements on other issues appear reluctant to speak directly to Vladimir Putin about his lies and crimes, apparently fearful that he will turn the tables on them, use their words to reinforce his power at home, and attack them for undermining the possibility of reasonable relations.

But there have been some happy exceptions when Western leaders have not been afraid to speak the truth to Putin directly even though the Russian’s bad behavior only underscores how right they are to do so. One such event is now attracting a great deal of attention in both Russia and Germany. It deserves to be known even more widely.

Because the G-20 summit took place in Hamburg this year and because it featured a meeting between Putin and Donald Trump, German and Russian commentators have recalled an earlier meeting in Hamburg, in 1994, when Estonian President Lennart Meri delivered a remarkable address that caused Vladimir Putin to stomp out of the hall.

That action, as German officials have pointed out, was unprecedented in the centuries during which this dinner has been held and raises questions to this day about Putin and more generally about Russia and its relationship to Europe.

That event occurred on February 25, 1994, at the Mathia-Dinner of Hansa cities and their representatives. Among the honored guests that day were Meri and a relatively junior Russian official, the deputy mayor of St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin, who shocked those in attendance by his boorish behavior.

Below is the full text of President Meri’s remarks from the portal of the Office of the Estonian President. They merit the closest attention both for their analysis of the situation and for the guidance they should be providing other leaders who have to interact with Putin now and in the future.

Address by H.E. Lennart Meri, President of the Republic of Estonia, at the Matthiae-Supper in Hamburg on February 25, 1994

Monday, 5 June 2017

Maikol Mendoza is a 17 year old Venezuelan who finally got a chance of life with a rare kidney transplant. The rat infested, medicine deprived state of his country's health care system has now deprived him of that second chance.

Then, Maikol became infected with a highly resistant bacteria borne out of the hospital’s poorly maintained water pipes.

Stories like Maikol's are everywhere in Venezuela, where the health care system is on the brink of total collapse and patients who thought they were in the clear are back to fighting a harsh reality. Hospitals have left patients’ families to fend for themselves, scurrying to purchase everything from syringes to anesthesia, often at exuberant black market rates, and forcing doctors to perform surgery with antiquated equipment in operating rooms cleaned with dirty water.

Many of those reading this will have read similar reporting from Venezuela. What escapes me is why the leadership of the UK Labour party, who have so publicly identified themselves with the 'Bolivarian revolution', has not been asked about it.

The great cut off

June 2015 is that last time Jeremy Corbyn said anything on the record about Venezuela. Eight months later he scrubbed his website of any mention of the country.

To my knowledge Diane Abbott, Ken Livingstone, Richard Burgon, Owen Jones, Neil Findlay, and Seumas Milne have also all said nothing since this time. Bar a single reference discovered by Jack Staples-Butler:

As of this writing, Owen Jones has not used the word ‘Venezuela’ in
print or online in the English language since 31st May 2015, over 580
days, mentioning it only when interviewed for a Spanish newspaper in
June 2016, admitting “Venezuela is in a horrible state”[17] while making no reference to Chávez, socialism or his own involvement.

Venezuela? Where's that?

This January Corbyn was in Mexico, on holiday, discussing his "dream of realizing a world government based on justice and fraternity,” with Mexico's Lopez Obrador, Venezuelan state TV channel Telesur reported.

The same month I imagine that Maikol Mendoza was wondering whether his transplant was happening.

A year ago on the day of Theresa May's election and to, presumably, cock a snoot at the Parliamentary Labour Party's meeting, Corbyn instead chose to not comment on May and to attend a Cuba Solidarity event in Parliament.

In the time since he stopped talking about Venezuela the Organisation of American States, Spain and the Vatican have all ramped up their efforts at a peace process President Maduro has trashed.

At the end of April the Pope, in his weekly address, said: "I make a heartfelt appeal to the government and all components of Venezuelan society to avoid any more forms of violence, respect human rights and seek a negotiated solution."

People are starving

Francisco Toro, executive editor of the excellent English language website Caracas Chronicles, spoke to a worker for the Catholic charity Caritas last week:

Caritas constructed a sample of more than two dozen at-risk areas in the poorest parishes of four Venezuelan states and started weighing children under 5 years old. This allows Caritas to measure “global acute malnutrition” — the key mechanism humanitarians use to assign numbers to the severity of hunger. In October, 8.9 percent of the children they measured faced either moderate or severe acute malnutrition. The number was high, and it has kept rising. By April, 11.4 percent of of children in vulnerable areas were experiencing acute malnutrition — well above the 10 percent threshold humanitarian agencies use to declare a food crisis.

Chavistas will blame the situation on the fall in the price of oil and the sulfurous Yankees, but malnutrition in children was already reversing from last decade's gains five years ago, before that price fell. The BBC World Service's 'The Inquiry' showed that Venezuela's economy has long had structural problems - and Chavista policies have only made them worse and led to today's situation.

Why are they doing this? Because they still believe they are creating a socialist paradise.

Writing for Caracas Chronicles César Crespo explained how Chavez' long game "was always establishing an “alternative” to capitalism." Spanish Marxist Professor Alfredo Serrano Mancilla, the main economic advisor to the government, has been described by Maduro as the "Jesus Christ of the economy." His prescriptions include:

Expropriations, the seizure of businesses, “urban agriculture” on balconies, the soviet supply system and forced employment in the public agriculture sector.

Mancilla wants any crisis hidden and no aid allowed in. According to the Spanish newspaper El Nacional, Mancilla has "solidified the idea that the socialist economic model of the 21st century is unquestionable, and that any failure is the result of attacks from the opposition."

Corbyn could have acted - he chose not to

When his visit to the region he professes to love was reported by Telesur at the beginning of this year Corbyn could have spoken out on Venezuela. When he spoke to the Cuban Solidarity crowd last June he could have spoken out.

He could have demanded:

That the Venezuelan government rejoin the peace process

That the Venezuelan government declare a food crisis

That the Venezuelan government allow humanitarian aid agencies and NGOs to freely operate and to bring in aid

He could have repeated the words, practically word-for-word, of the Pope.

Here's the thing. Even within the worldview of supporters, like him, of Chavismo the country is deemed under attack from the evil behemoth to the North - yet still Corbyn (and all the others) has stayed silent and refused to come to the aid of the 'revolution'.

Never mind what happened 35 years ago or even 14 years ago (see an 'Exclusive!' piece today about Corbyn and North Korea) - what about now? Right now?

Venezuela is Corbyn's opportunity to not just play a 'Man of Peace' but to actually be one. He failed.

I have no doubt that even if I had published this weeks ago it would have had little impact, it is clear that such issues are largely irrelevant in this election. But it remains important that people know - Venezuela is the proof everyone has missed in this election, that Corbyn is no 'Man of Peace'.

Edited to add: Corbyn could have taken a lead from Spain's left wing party Podemos. They realised back in 2014 that they had to distance themselves from Chavismo, something they had previously been entwined with. This has caused the Maduro regime a lot of pain and demonstrates how someone like Corbyn similarly reversing could have a positive impact. See Caracas Chronicles from last May.

There's mountains of them and they're nigh-on impossible to resist (I should know). They're especially difficult to resist if you can use them to make a bigger political point, as Tom Harris did in a Telegraph piece headlined 'The Left has lost the plot if it thinks the Manchester attack was a Tory conspiracy'.

The thing is that 'the Left' is not, enmasse, conspiracising over Manchester, and that's significant.

The well respected Canadian writer Terry Glavin has noticed this too. He says that "a tectonic shift in the way the “debates” around terrorism [has] lately evolved."

In the NATO capitals, something has finally shifted in the way Islamist terror is understood. It is as though the public tolerance for claptrap and prevarication of both the leftish and rightist type has at last been reached, and a new consensus, of the kind expressed so beautifully by Mancunians this week – Muslim and otherwise – is beginning to take hold.

.......

At the time of the London bombings, Jeremy Corbyn, then just a boring, offside Labour MP, joined with London Mayor Ken Livingstone (recently suspended from the Labur Party for his dalliances with anti-Semitism) and the disgraced former Labour MP George Galloway (a fancier of Syrian genocidaire Bashar Assad and a Hezbollah enthusiast) in blaming the London attack on Western foreign policy.

Corbyn is now the leader of a bitterly divided and vastly diminished Labour Party that is expected to be trounced by Prime Minister Theresa May in the June 8 parliamentary elections. You won’t hear Corbyn blaming the wicked former U.S. president George W. Bush for Monday night’s outrage in Manchester. It would be suicidal. Things have changed.

The Manchester massacre occurred four years to the day after Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was butchered by “lone wolf” jihadists in the streets of Woolwich. Rigby’s throat was opened with a crude knife and he was nearly decapitated, with a meat cleaver. As recently as 2013, it was still fashionable to utter imbecilities lightening such murderers’ burden of guilt by resort to the “blowback” defence.

At the time, the famous American fantasist/documentarian Michael Moore declared that Rigby’s slaughter was understandable, because Westerners “kill people in other countries.”

This sort of vulgar “analysis” has been largely excised from respectable conversation and appears now to be confined to the sewers of public debate, where it belongs. On Tuesday, the Kremlin propaganda channel RT News found some “experts” who took up the line. So did the viciously homophobic and anti-Semitic British Hizb ut-Tahrir group, which is about as popular among British Muslims as Galloway is among Britain’s Labour Party MPs.

The leading proponents of blowback, Tariq Ali and John Pilger, have, post-Manchester, been confined to, respectively, Democracy Now! and Russia Today with their micro-audiences. It also seems that Stop The War Coalition (StWC) have STFU. They must be chafing at the bit.

Of course there are people online connecting Corbyn's Iraq War opposition to somehow being 'prescient' because that War caused ISIS or something (and here is a brilliant meme from Andrew Spooner which nails down that canard).

But these are fringe voices.

As I write what 'blowback' argument there is is coming not just from the left but from everywhere on the political spectrum and it's about Theresa May's stint as Home Secretary and her cuts to the police.

As Glavin notes:

The people of Manchester are not unfamiliar with the horrible implications of “radicalization” among young Muslim men. The Muslim leadership in that city has been acutely concerned with the implications of jihadist recruitment and grooming for some long while.

As is so often the case, it seems the bomber was indeed reported to authorities. Whether police cuts really did play a role, given how expanded the security services have been, I don't know, but citing them is entirely legitimate and that's what the Corbynistas are doing along with a whole lot of other people.

What the biggest (with one exception) Corbyn supporting websites are not doing is indulging conspiracy theories, such as that the bombing was a false flag connected to the election or that the army deployment is to somehow win the election.

These websites, as Jim Waterson documented for Buzzfeed, have truly huge audiences and are consequently extremely influential but fly pretty much under the radar of Tweetminster.

Thomas G Clark (Another Angry Voice (AAV)), writes Waterson, is "measured by Facebook shares per article in the first week of the election campaign, the most viral political journalist in the entire country. "

None of AAV, The Canary, Evolve Politics, and Skwawkbox have indulged conspiracism. (The Canary even had, I swear this is true, an editorial the day after the bombing that would not have been out of place in The Guardian)

Clark for AAV wrote last nightagainst the conspiracy theorists, saying that "conspiracy theorising about "false flags" is deeply unhelpful".

The evidence-free assertions that the Tories plotted this attack themselves are damaging to the fabric of British political debate. The Tories might well be an incredibly callous party, but in my view they're also far too incompetent to pull something like that off without leaving incriminating evidence all over the place.

The important issues at the moment are that they deserve intense scrutiny about the extreme cuts they imposed on the armed forces, police, emergency services, hospitals and border agency. Also serious questions need to be asked about the emerging accusations that the bomber had been shopped to the police several times for having links to Islamist extremism.

Of course they have sailed right up to the line and there's a lot of stuff here I think is idiotic, particularly the stuff around the bombing halting a 'Corbyn surge' when its clear May's time as Home Secretary is coming back to haunt her over the issue of, of all things, security. Daniel Sugarman pointed me at this from Skwawkbox's Steve Walker, but I don't think its conspiracism because Walker's not saying the troop deployment was in order to win the election (i.e. there's a conspiracy).

And of course they have all sailed right over the line into conspiracism elsewhere. The Canary is right now doing that over the 'Evil Hillary murdered Seth Rich who dun the Wikileaks not the Russkies' conspiracy theory, as promoted by Fox New's Shaun Hannity. All of them have done it over antisemitism, with Sivier being a particularly stupid example. Also, as Andrew Coates has documented, conspiracism is growing within the European left. And, as Nick Cohen and others have suggested, they may well blame the Manchester bombings June 9 for Corbyn's defeat.

But over the Manchester bombing, as of now, most of them aren't pushing conspiracies, and it was also notable to see Corbyn sidekick Baroness Chakrabati, the bete-noire of many reading this regarding her role around Labour and antisemitism, going out of her way to speak out against conspiracism on BBC Newnight.

Terry Glavin thinks Manchester signals that something might have changed for the better and I think the evidence suggests that it has.

What if the non-Corbynistas, the 'sensible left', the fans of Nick Cohen - us - have actually had an impact?

What if we were so caught up in our own bubble that we failed to notice when we've actually won ourselves a little victory?

~~~~

*Before someone cites Rufus Hound having 1.2 million followers on Twitter the way that works is that only a tiny fraction of that number will have actually seen the Tweet. Far more will have now, of course, because it's been amplified by the outrage to it.

Saturday, 21 January 2017

America does not take kindly to the world telling it stuff but there is an opera in this.

As the world watched - same time, same planet - its greatest power crowned a man who lost the vote to a woman. Same time, same planet, Africa peacefully forced our a man who lost power by the same majority vote to another man. Peacefully.

As the West hands nuclear codes to a man who lost the vote to a woman West Africa peacefully removes a man voted out by a majority.

An African region was telling a member to uphold democracy. It rolled out troops.

Another contrast

The US has a President who has a minority of votes. His election is predicated on a 200yr+ system designed to boost states with small populations in a system that this country has never tried to change. There is V strong evidence he was elected because of the intervention of a police chief, never mind the foreigners alleged to have interfered. There are electors calling him illegitimate.

How hard is it for this white Londoner to see this through African eyes? Not very.

Wednesday, 4 January 2017

“Negative campaigning works against other candidates but not against
Corbyn,” one Smith aide said. “For a lot of people he embodies something
about themselves. It’s a statement of intent about your personal
identity, a personality marker to like Corbyn. So attack that and people
take it personally.”

Jim Waterson signalling how a Corbyn identifying left will gladly sell out the likes of Venezuela's starving. Watch them - If/and you help this go viral.

A member of the Democratic Action party and past vice president of the Socialist International, Henry Ramos Allup, was elected Speaker of the opposition controlled Venezuelan National Assembly in January this year.

The Venezuela Solidarity Campaign, which Corbyn and others are aligned with, have repeatedly said that these Social Democrats are 'right wing'. Here's them describing Ramos Allup as 'right wing'.

They are no more 'right wing' than Owen Smith, Harriet Harman or Wes Streeting is but in Venezuela this label dumped on them by the Western likes of the VSC carries far more serious weight.

Herein lies a Lenin-echo tale

All four parties have been persecuted under, first, Hugo Chavez and now Nicholas Maduro.

Leopoldo López, of Popular Will, is the most well known persecution subject. He was jailed in February 2014 on charges of public incitement to violence through supposed subliminal messages and criminal association. He had previously been subjected to corruption charges, and banned from running for office. Those charges were declared false by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Chilean José Antonio Viera-Gallo tried to visit López in 2014 in a mission from the Socialist International and was denied access. Viera-Gallo said:

In a dictatorship, there are no rights whatsoever, and one is left at the mercy of power. Yesterday, we confirmed human right violations against a political leader.

"The charges brought against Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo López," was a “smack of a politically motivated attempt to silence dissent in the country.”

Guadalupe Marengo, Amnesty International Americas Program Deputy Director, called on Venezuelan authorities to:

Either present solid evidence to substantiate the charges against López or release him immediately and unconditionally ... Amnesty International has not seen evidence to substantiate these charges. This is an affront to justice and free assembly.

The (UK) Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (VSC, whose prominent left-wing British supporters I called out) have called López "right wing" - have called any opposition 'right wing' - and has disseminated Venezuelan government propaganda against him.

The group have said about protests against food shortages and repression:

The calls for street action from the opposition, [amounts] to destabilizing the country.

This is the language of Putin, of Lukashenko. This is Stalinism. To underline that Kremlinesque 2013 post, the VSC specifically tied the social democrat López to "fascists".

In this they echo the Venezuela government who just called the Chilean Foreign Minister, who served under Allende, a 'Pinochetista' for daring to inquire about the arrest of one of its citizens, the lawyer Braulio Jatar.

Jatar's imprisonment brings the number of political prisoners in Venezuela to 95.

'Man of peace'

I have looked and cannot find any contacts between Corbyn, or Ken Livingstone (for that matter), with Social Democrats in Venezuela.

All of them were so bewitched, and, as Jack demonstrates, the 1930s, Orwell-Spain, parallels are so exact.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That they did not know is impossible

In a 2013 encounter on Al-Jazeera Corbyn was called out on his Chavismo support with critics citing corruption, manipulation of elections, and alliances with dictatorships like Iran and Syria.

His answer - noteworthy angry - was to point to 'what Venezuela was like before Chavez' and the fact that Chavez had won elections. He denied that Chavez has clamped down on the media and described opposition criticism of Chavez in the media as "libelous"

Since 2003, Freedom House has ranked Venezuela as "not free" concerning press freedom. Concerns about freedom of the press in Venezuela have been raised by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Inter American Press Association, the International Press Institute, Reporters without Borders, representatives of the Catholic Church, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and others.

"[Chavez] was not a very efficient dictator because he allowed so much opposition to carry on," Corbyn said.

Corbyn knew. Of course he knew. He knows now. Ask him and watch the 'man of peace' dissolve before your eyes. Ask.

In his last recorded comments on Venezuela in June 2015 Corbyn did not include anything - not one word - on the grim situation with hunger in Venezuela, never mind the international outcry from fellow Social Democrats over the imprisonment of López. Almost the entire focus was on supposed American imperialism.

Now he deletes all comment on Venezuela from his website.

Do not tell me they did not know. Owen Jones, Burgon, Abbott - FFS Milne. They all knew.

Essential to any Bonapartist regime is the role of the army. Chávez was a career soldier and this conditions his outlook and politics. This is not simply because he tried to seize power in 1992 through a military coup. It is widely recognised that Chávez militarised politics in Venezuela.

Chávezs made it clear in interviews with sympathetic journalists such as Marta Harnecker and the hero-worshipping Richard Gott that a reconstructed “civilian-military alliance” was the key to his politics. His organisation, the MBR-200, formed in the early 1980s, was made up largely of middle level officers, with others in a secondary role.

The armed forces have been central from the beginning of Chávez’s rule.

Her shtick has been distributed in the same way - and often from the same sources - as was the notion that the Sandy Hook massacre of Connecticut small school children was staged.

The lunacy, the internal contradictions, of this shtick has not been better mocked than by Jim Kovpak.

My timeline since Oliver's RT has been bloated with conspiracists. I have hit 'mute' a lot.

Flying Monkeys.. descend!

I am way far from alone in being assailed by such Flying Monkeys. Someone still obsessed with complaining about Hilary Benn* thinks the RAF is bombing Aleppo. Someone who has a ton of followers. Many of those same people are busy defaming the White Helmets.

It is all the same to them - Syrians are lying, a white person knows better than a brown one.

This is the truth they keep yelling about. The I Know Better truth.

The White Helmets are the civilians busy pulling Syrian people from the rubble. Their reality is documented times over but their treatment by sections of the supposed liberal/left, emblematic of the defamation in general heaped on Syrians, including our comrades, trying to do something against fascism, is not featured by liberal media. For four years we have had this. Liberal media failing to expose these people.

This is from the David Icke website. All Civilian protectors in Syria must be in service to the great lizard.

According to the Internet the White Helmets are part of a false flag operation. Or they are AL-Queda. You can find it all endlessly repeated online.

The campaign against the White Helmets went quiet after Jo Cox, the British MP who was a great friend to Syrians, was assasinated. It has ramped up since. That their selfless acts are questioned, by anyone, should - should - be incredible. Yet those who distort are seemingly allowed to get away with it.

All this is not 'Labour'

A timeline telling me that a Tweeting seven year old Aleppine is a CIA invention should be a joke - F'yes - but when it comes to the Syrian civil defence organisation the White Helmets it should be different, for anyone in the Party. As far as Labour is concerned you should - should - never dare touch the White Helmets.

The White Helmets were joint recipients of the Jo Cox memorial fund. When you hurt that you hurt Labour.

They are as 'Labour' as the Welsh Dulais Valley miners and families I visited in 1984. Labour is Internationalist and Jo Cox embraced that meaning.

Social media is flooded with defamation against the likes of the White Helmets. Labour has seen this before. Jo got this. We should too.

If Jo Cox's life meant anything it was that we enfolded these Syrians within Us. If we respect Jo we listen to those she listened to.

But, is there is a block between Us embracing the likes of the White Helmets?

Are We the White Helmets or Not?

All that keeps us from this is conspiracism. Or straight up silencing of Syrians, as Stop The War Coalition does.

One or the other Labour has to reject both. It is not who we are.

How many of those who I just engaged with, via Oliver Kamm, are Labour? Who else are here in Labour who would reject those who Jo embraced?

The point is, Mr Prescott and everyone else, whether we heard Jo or not, whether she represents us or not, Labour must decide. Who Are We.

Jo Cox's embrace of the White Helmets faces Labour with a stark choice. Whether Labour likes it or not.

Are we those who defame the White Helmets - or are we not? John? Others?